When the Truth Hurts

08/17/2009 12:25 PM |

Interesting op-ed in Daily Mail by British columnist Stephen Glover.  The title says it all:

I deeply resent the Americans sneering at our health service  -  but perhaps that's because the truth hurts

Here’s how it begins:

"President Barack Obama's political enemies are rounding on his controversial proposals to extend government involvement in health care. One way in which they are doing so is to hold up our own cherished NHS for ridicule."

And here’s how it ends:

"The President is discovering that people are apt to want to defend and preserve what they have. The same is true of we British and our lumbering health service. The difference, though, is that what the Americans have is, for the most part, better than the NHS."

And here’s a link to the complete article.

  Read More & Comment...

Personalized Pee Value

08/17/2009 12:05 PM |

A urine test could help doctors decide which drugs will be most effective for their patients, scientists have shown.In trials the test predicted how well men would respond to paracetamol. The experts from Imperial College London and the drug giant Pfizer report their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers say this kind of "metabolic profiling" could ultimately allow doctors to work out perfect drug matches for individuals, with no risk of side effects. "Pre-clinical studies had suggested it might be possible to predict how individuals would react to drugs by looking at their pre-dose metabolite profiles, but this is the first time that anyone has been able to show convincingly that such a test could work in humans.

"The beauty of the pre-dose metabolite profiling is that it can tap into both genetic and environmental factors influencing drug treatment outcomes."

The full BBC story can be found here. 

  Read More & Comment...

Alta in the Family

08/17/2009 11:57 AM |

When I was asked to advise President Obama’s FDA transition team, some of the smartest questions came from Alta Charo.  Now she can ask even smarter questions from the inside. Starting on August 31^st, she’s joining FDA as a senior advisor, reporting to Assistant Commissioner for Policy David Horowitz.

Charo (a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison) also served on the Institute of Medicine panel that examined the country's drug safety system.  According to the Pink Sheet, “Other issues that Charo has examined include direct-to-consumer advertising and generic testing, and she has also come out in favor of a mandatory vaccination campaign for human papilloma virus.”

Charo told colleagues in Madison that she will be joining "a small group of people who will form a think tank within the commissioner's office." FDA declined to discuss what her exact role will be. Her appointment at the agency lasts for one year but can be renewed for another year.

  Read More & Comment...

Spikes Speak

08/14/2009 11:53 AM |

AARP?  Fish or Foul?  Advocacy Organization or Insurance Company?  For HR3200 or Against ... or Agnostic?

See what Lou Dobbs has to say -- with some help from your's truly.

Click here ... and watch where you sit.



  Read More & Comment...

Feel the Burn

08/13/2009 09:07 PM |

On the Fox program, “Money for Breakfast,” I was asked if America is suffering from “healthcare fatigue."  Short answer – no.  And that’s a good thing.

Here's a link to the short segment.

Not fatigued -- empowered!


  Read More & Comment...

Health Care Headlines from Elsewhere in the World

08/13/2009 03:34 PM |

Foreign Affairs

As an antidote to the American media’s near-myopia about health care in considering the UK and Canada the only foreign countries with any relevance (which has abated somewhat but not nearly enough), some health care headlines from elsewhere in the world.

In Germany, in new poll by the Allensbach Institute indicates that the population is concerned about two-class medicine, with 72 percent of participants saying they are concerned that patients with private insurance get better treatment than those in the public system. And 80 percent of doctors say they don’t have enough time with patients to complete everything they need to.

Further, public sickness funds face deficits next year that are estimated at between 7 and 11 billion euros. Special “ancillary premiums” are likely to be charged by the sickness funds at some point this year and the insurers are seeking, unsuccessfully so far, more money from the government.

In France, the coffers of the national health care system are 9.4 billion euros in the red and conservative politicians there have been making ominous pronouncements about the future of the Sécurité Sociale system as a whole.

In Switzerland, health care premiums could rise up to 20 percent next year. A poll found that some 30 percent of people there may switch insurance companies if premiums go up 10 percent, some 43 percent if they increase 15 percent, and a majority will move to a cheaper company if the rise is indeed 20 percent. In addition, 58 percent say they are against the 30 Swiss franc (~$27) co-pay for visits to the doctor.

Deficits, co-pays, and too short consultations with the doctor. If this all sounds familiar, it should. The US isn’t alone in its problems and no system is perfect, all make trade-off with regard to what they cover and what they cost. All three of the above systems are either private or public-private hybrids that bear lots of similarities to the US system –and to American reform proposals, making it clear that no matter what the outcome of the bills now before Congress, the challenges the US faces aren’t going to magically melt away.

There are no panaceas in either policy or medicine and those who believe there are have been duped. The lesson is clear: look before you leap –and look carefully.

  Read More & Comment...

Daniel in the Lion's Den

08/12/2009 12:27 PM |

Word today is that Dan Schultz is leaving his post as CDRH director and retiring from the FDA.

That's a loss.

Dan's smart, feisty, and calls it like he sees it -- a trait that has often put him at odds with lesser mortals.

And he's a nice, decent guy. Two traits often in short supply.

Good luck and God's Speed Dan Schultz.
  Read More & Comment...

Lovenox Labors Lost

08/12/2009 12:07 PM |

A few years ago I met Israel Markov, the "Big Abba" of Teva.  A memorable guy for a lot of reasons.  One of those reasons was his blunt Sabra honesty.  One thing he said to me was that "Teva isn't in the pharmaceutical business.  We are in the litigtation business."

It seems now that another company, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, isn't satisfied with patent litigation as its weapon of choice.  Unsatisfied with the way the FDA is dealing with their file for generic Lovenox, they've achieved new lows by attempting personal intimidation tactics.  It won't work.

They're slinging mud.  It will only come back to splatter on their own reputation.  

Amphastar claims that its rival, Momenta,  has a "leg up" and is getting "special access."  And yet both companies are in the same place in the regulatory process and both companies are being asked for the same data sets.  And this is unfair why?

According to Amphastar it's unfair because CDER Director, Dr. Janet Woodcock co-authored a paper with one of Momenta's founders, MIT biological engineering professor Ram Sasisekharan, on how the FDA taskforce (on which they both served) identified and contained the cause of contaminated Chinese heparin imports.

Talk about desperate measures.
  Read More & Comment...

The AP Obama Apology Tour

08/11/2009 04:18 PM |

 Just so you know... From the latest AP editorial on heatlhcare

"His approval ratings slipping, President Barack Obama is retooling his message on health care overhaul, aiming to win over Americans who already have insurance."

Wait a minute.  I thought the goal of reform was to cover people who did not have insurance and couldn't afford it or were denied coverage.  Shouldn't the proposal be retooled as opposed to the message?

"Republicans say the heated debate is a sign of widespread public dissatisfaction with Obama's ideas. But with some of the anxieties spilling into angry disruptions and even threats, Democrats have accused Republicans of orchestrating the events to sabotage legislation. In an article published Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote, "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

Obama and his aides stayed away from such provocative language"

Right, they just set up a government website to collect information about political opposition and promising congressional Democrats that they would "punch back twice as hard" against opponents.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html

Do they address the major flaws and impact of every proposal on the table.

No.

  Read More & Comment...

Deal or No Deal?

08/11/2009 12:00 PM |

Last night CBS News reported, "When he was running for President, Barack Obama attacked pharmaceutical companies for charging too much for prescription drugs. But now he's teamed up with those same companies to promote his healthcare plan," and critics are accusing President Obama "of making a back-room deal that could end up costing seniors plenty." CBS added, "Initial reports said the White House agreed not to seek price controls on drugs for seniors on Medicare and would not support importing cheaper drugs from Canada. Both the White House and the pharmaceutical industry now dispute that." CBS also noted that news of the "back-room deal riled fellow Democrats."

So, no deal?

But on August 5th, the New York Times ran a front page article headlined,

"White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost.”

It read in part, “Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.” After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms. “They blessed the deal,” Mr. Tauzin said. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House was not bound by any industry deals with the Senate or the White House. But, Mr. Tauzin said, “as far we are concerned, that is a done deal.”

So, deal?

Simple yes-or-no question:  Does the President support "the deal" or does he not?

 

  Read More & Comment...

House UnAmerican Activities Editorial

08/11/2009 03:49 AM |

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

We have taken great pains to distance ourselves -- and those individuals who have attended town hall meetings of their own volition -- from the handful of individuals and one or two nut jobs who sought to shout rather than ask tough questions even as certain poitical operatives have sought to lump us, them and all into one seething hateful mob.

That is politics as usual.

But the editorial today by Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer -- mostly unmentioned by the same media who covered the handful of angry Americans as if they were the vanguard of some neo-Bund movement -- calling those who assemble and organize against a misguided effort to increase government control over healthcare as "unAmerican.

Here is the key quote:

"An ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

Let the facts be heard

These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

Those who oppose or criticize are part of an ugly campaign to drown out opposing views and suppress the facts.   Thus we are unAmerican. 

Have you been or are you now part of any campaign to oppose health care reform.  If so, you are drowning out the facts.  And if you were oppose health care reform you obviously endorse hanging opponents in effigy.

I think the exchange between Joseph McCarthy and Joseph Welch sums up the tactics and desperate moral compass of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer with respect to enacting single payer healthcare reform. I can't generalize to anyone else ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_N._Welch

On June 9, 1954, the 30th day of the hearings, McCarthy accused Fred Fisher, one of the junior attorneys at Welch's firm, of association (while in law school) with the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which J. Edgar Hoover sought to have the U.S. Attorney General designate as a Communist front organization (see Army-McCarthy hearings). Welch wrote off Fisher's association with the NLG as a youthful indiscretion and went after McCarthy for dragging the young man's name before a nationwide television audience with no prior warning or previous agreement to do so:

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us...(L)ittle did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr (Welch's law firm). It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."

When McCarthy tried to go on the attack once more, Welch stepped in again and famously rebuked:

"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

McCarthy tried to ask Welch another question about Fisher, and Welch cut him off:

"Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this with you further. You have sat within six feet of me and could have asked about Fred Fisher. You have brought it out. If there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness."

  Read More & Comment...

Health Reform Goes Pink

08/10/2009 11:52 AM |

Pink Sheet, that is.

Two items of note (courtesy of the Pink Sheet) that are urgently important, but getting little attention.

1. Non-Interference

The House health care reform bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee directs HHS to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers for the Medicare Part D program, but it does not authorize HHS to establish a national formulary.

That leaves the provision vulnerable to being stripped out as the bill proceeds through Congress -on the basis that it may not reduce costs.

The Congressional Budget Office, in past estimates, has consistently concluded that savings generated from direct government price negotiation under Part D would be negligible unless HHS could bring some bargaining leverage to the table.

In a 2007 analysis, then CBO Director (now OMB Director) Peter Orszag wrote: "Negotiation is likely to be effective only if it is accompanied by some sort of pressure on drug manufacturers to secure price concessions."

Specifically, "the authority to establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take regulatory actions against firms failing to offer price reductions could give the [HHS secretary] the ability to obtain significant discounts."

He added that "in the absence of such authority, the Secretary's ability to issue credible threats or take other actions in an effort to obtain significant discounts would be limited."

2. Comparative Effectiveness

Although it was not introduced during the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of the health care reform bill, an amendment prepared by Rep. Donna Christensen, D-V.I., that would create a public-private institute to oversee comparative effectiveness research activities remains in play and could be a part of the final package that is voted on by the House.

Christensen was given the go-ahead to introduce the amendment during the markup, but time constraints kept the amendment, which was filed with the committee, from being introduced for consideration. A staffer for Christensen said the representative has a commitment from Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to work on adding the amendment to the final House bill. The amendment would replace the current language in H.R. 3200 that places coordination of comparative effectiveness research activities within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The current language creates an independent CER commission to oversee the center, recommend research priorities and conduct stakeholder outreach.

According to a fact sheet on Christensen's amendment, it would create an independent public-private institute governed by a board of directors consisting of the HHS secretary, the directors of AHRQ and the National Institutes of Health, and 20 additional members appointed by GAO representing a broad range of stakeholders, including patients and consumers, physicians, public agencies (CMS and state and federal health programs), private payers, drug and device manufacturers, non-profit health research organizations, quality measurement/decision support organizations and organizations conducting minority health research.

The amendment, co-sponsored by fellow committee Democrat Jay Inslee, Wash., and Republicans Greg Walden, Ore., and Fred Upton, Mich., has a lot in common with the approach that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus would like to get into that committee's version of the bill.

  Read More & Comment...

AP becomes part of Obama Counter Campaign

08/07/2009 11:05 PM |

Here's AP's Erica Werner taking up the Obama cause to swat away "disinformation" about health care reform:

Support for Obama's approach to health care has dropped in the polls, and the White House sought to address some oft-repeated claims.Among them: Will Medicare benefits be cut? Will government bureaucrats ration care? Will the elderly get progressively less care and then have euthanasia presented as an option?

Sebelius answered: No, no and no.

She said the administration wants to save money in Medicare by eliminating unnecessary procedures and hospital readmissions, among other things, but that there was no desire to eliminate needed benefits. She contended that insurance companies already ration care and that Obama wants to give doctors more control, not less.

As for the euthanasia claim: "Nothing could be less true ... that is just not part of the conversation," Sebelius said.

The rumor has become widespread and seems to stem from a provision in the House bill that would require Medicare to pay for direct consultations with health care professionals. Sebelius noted that no one would be required to use the benefit and said it would help many families. "

Notice any response from people that might have information -- cited and sourced (contra the Sebelius generalities) to the contrary?

Nada.

Nice work, Erica.  Is this on top of your AP salary?

Read article here

  Read More & Comment...

LaRouchies Pollute Healthcare Debate

08/07/2009 09:27 PM |

When I heard that the other N word (Nazi) was being used or represented by people at town hall meetings it took me about two seconds to realize that those spewing the garbage were none other than LaRouchies who see the rise of fascism behind every government action. See sick site below...

Read it here

Let's be clear: there is nothing Nazi-like about any of the healthcare proposals.  Just writing that, makes me sick.  What is even sicker is how the LaRouche zombies are able to insinuate themselves into rallies, meetings, etc. without being called on it.   Which explains how Borat got made I guess. 

In any event,  it is up to those people and organizations who are genuinely concerned about a government takeover of healthcare to express those opinions with passion, conviction and through democratic action.  And at that same time it might behoove them to call out those who would use the Nazis plan to exterminate the Jews as a metaphor for healthcare reform as beyond the pale of civilized discourse.  


  Read More & Comment...

Dobbs Story

08/07/2009 06:47 PM |

My discussion of Great Britain's National Health Service and NICE (from Thursday night's Lou Dobbs program) can be found here.


  Read More & Comment...

Skip to my Lou

08/07/2009 01:09 PM |

Yesterday healthcare in the United Kingdom was the focus of a segment on the Lou Dobbs Show.  Lou’s lead in to the segment (reported on by Kitty Pilgrim) was, “In fact almost 60 percent of Britons believe the system requires fundamental change. Kitty Pilgrim has our report.”

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Go to a doctor in Britain, you won't have to pay when you leave. It's the same at the hospital. All health services are publicly funded by the National Health Service, funded by taxes. For that reason, a survey revealed only two percent of people in the U.K. who had a medical problem did not seek treatment because of costs. Peter Pitts (ph) of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, a nonpartisan research group, says the upside to the U.K. health system is universal coverage.

PETER PITTS, CTR. FOR MEDICINE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The NHS delivers healthcare today in the classic British tradition of muddling through. It’s mediocre care for everybody.

PILGRIM: The British government sets the budget and is charged with determining what will and will not be paid for. Critics point out that cutting-edge drug treatments for Alzheimer's, cancer and other severe conditions are often not included on a list of medicines that the government agency known as NICE will allow for reimbursement. Peter Pitts says it's a system that has real shortcomings.

PITTS: You can either accept a one size fits all health care system, which really doesn't fit anybody all that well, which is really terrific if you're not sick or very sick. But once you have cancer or advanced stages of lots of diseases and you really need cutting-edge medicine that system is really not equipped to provide it with excellence as ours is here.

PILGRIM: Now a 2007 study found that 57 percent of the people in the U.K. said the system really needed significant overhaul. Some in the U.K. have decided to opt out of the national health system and pay for private medical coverage. It is available. But anyone taking on private medical care has to opt out of the national health system, so a telling point is in the last decade some British companies are actually offering private health care as a recruitment perk for their employees.

Video posting of the complete segment shortly.

On a related and very timely note, the Times of London reports today that:

“Medical leaders have warned that shortages of doctors, nurses and other clinical staff are putting the NHS under unsustainable pressure as a generation of health workers enters retirement amid cutbacks in junior doctors’ working hours.

The number of vacancies for hospital doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives has risen for the first time in five years as trusts struggle to recruit and retain staff. New data from the NHS Information Centre revealed that more than one in twenty medical and dental posts were vacant at the end of March, in some cases for months at a time, while thousands of nursing and midwifery posts were also unfilled.

Of the total number of vacant posts, one in five — 5,500 jobs — had been left unfilled for three months or more, suggesting long-term problems with recruitment. Senior staff leaving the service and the reluctance of younger people to replace them were blamed for the shortfalls as total vacancy rates increased across most staff groups. Doctors’ leaders have also warned that the European Working Time Directive, which from this month limits junior doctors to a maximum 48-hour week, could create shortages, leaving trusts to rely on temporary or locum staff.”

The complete Times story can be found here.

These times demand the Times (of London).

  Read More & Comment...

Ratcheting it up a Peg

08/06/2009 03:16 PM |

More comments on this shortly.

FDA NEWS RELEASE

FDA Commissioner Sets Out Vision on Enforcement to Support Public Health

Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., today outlined her commitment “to prevent harm to the American people” through swift, aggressive, and effective enforcement of FDA laws and regulations.

“The FDA must be vigilant, the FDA must be strategic, the FDA must be quick, and the FDA must be visible,” Commissioner Hamburg told a group of industry representatives, attorneys, consumers, and others attending a speech sponsored by the Food and Drug Law Institute in Washington, D.C. “We must get the word out that the FDA is on the job.”

Commissioner Hamburg said that some FDA enforcement actions over the past several years “have been hampered by unreasonable delays” and “in some cases, serious violations have gone unaddressed for far too long.” She added that the pathways for enforcement actions “can be too long and arduous when the public’s health is in jeopardy.”

Commissioner Hamburg highlighted six initial steps designed to hone the effectiveness and timeliness of the FDA’s regulatory and enforcement system:

– Set post-inspection deadlines. The FDA will establish a clear timeline for regulated industry to respond to significant FDA inspection findings, generally giving no more than 15 days to respond to such findings before the agency issues a warning letter or takes other enforcement action.

– Take responsible steps to speed the warning letter process. The FDA will streamline the warning letter process by limiting review of warning letters by the Office of Chief Counsel to those that present significant legal issues.

– Work more closely with FDA’s regulatory partners. In some cases, such as with food safety issues, state, local, and international officials can act more quickly than the FDA. When public health is at risk, the agency will coordinate with its regulatory partners to take rapid action.

– Prioritize follow-up on warning letters and other enforcement actions. The FDA will work quickly to assess and follow up on corrective action taken by industry after a warning letter is issued or major product recall occurs.

– Be prepared to take immediate action in response to public health risks. To better protect the public health, the agency is prepared to act more quickly and aggressively to deal with significant public health concerns and violations. Such actions may occur before a formal warning letter is issued.

– Develop and implement a formal warning letter “close-out” process.” If the agency can determine that a firm has fully corrected violations raised in a warning letter the agency will issue an official “close-out” notice and post this information on the FDA Web site. This will be an important motivator for corrective action by manufacturers.

By taking these steps, Commissioner Hamburg said, the FDA will ensure that “violative inspection results are taken seriously, that warning letters and enforcement actions occur in a timely manner and that steps are taken to protect consumers in cases where immediate enforcement action is not possible.”

  Read More & Comment...

When Moore is Less

08/06/2009 01:37 PM |

Wow.  Busy day what with the front page article in the New York Times and some very savvy reporting in the Wall Street Journal. Who said August was going to be slow? Talk about a food fight at recess!

All that to say that the window seems to be somewhat open to actually discussing the … facts! I know, who would ever have thunk it.

Taking advantage of this new opportunity, I’ve penned a new op-ed on the Reuters “Great Debate” site.  Here’s a taste:

“In SiCKO, Michael Moore portrayed the British National Health Service and the Canadian health system as particular exemplars of excellence. He backed it up with a lot of statistics, but statistics, as the saying goes, are like a bathing suit. What they show you is interesting, but what they conceal is essential.

And what SiCKO concealed was that systems such as those in the United Kingdom and Canada are cost-based rather than patient-centric models. Facts, no matter how inconvenient to one’s argument, must not be ignored.

Citizens of countries with government-run health care systems experience long wait times, a lack of access to certain treatments and, in many instances, substandard medical care. For example:

• The five-year survival rate for early diagnosed breast cancer patients in England is just 78 percent, compared to 98 percent in the U.S.

• A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to The Fraser Institute.

• The average wait time for bypass surgery in New York is 17 days compared to 72 days in the Netherlands and 59 days in Sweden.

• More than half of Canadian adults (56 percent) sought routine or ongoing care in 2005. Of these, one in six said they have trouble getting routine care.

• Eighty-five percent of doctors in Canada agree private insurance for health services already covered under Medicare would result in shorter wait times.

• Approximately 875,000 Canadians are on waiting lists for medical treatment.

If we’re going to look to other healthcare models for solutions, we must uncover and study their problems. Health care is too important to allow reform by sound bite. “Drugs from Canada” is as much a false promise as “free” healthcare. Such are the fallacies that political rhetoric hath wrought."

The complete op-ed can be found here.

  Read More & Comment...

Help the White House Fish for Disinformation

08/06/2009 02:49 AM |

Have you seen the creepy youtube from the White House Office of Healthcare Reform seeking help to rat out people like me and Peter who spread disinformation through emails, casual conversations and passing notes in school about health "insurance" reform (which is it guys?)

Here it is...



Well, ok...

So how about Obama vs. Obama. Is that fishy disinformation?

Here is the President's response -- captured in the clip provided by The Disinformation Czarina -- to a question posed by Jake Tapper about whether people will have to change plans or not:

"Well, all right- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform. Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don't do anything- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, "Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can't afford it. It's too complicated. So, let's take our time," et cetera. So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all. And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important."

Left unsaid in all this is whether the government will try to keep you from changing plans if you want (which happens in all bills) or using Medicaid as a dumping ground for people. And the President pretty cheery about the possibilities of a government run plan being lots cheaper than a private plans:

"So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies. Because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there; health care is there when families need it. But, I'm confident that, if- you know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families. And if that's the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case, then I think that that's something that the American people should know."

Is that because he knows government can set prices and low-ball private companies who are forced to charge young and healthy people higher premiums to subsidize sick and health people.

That's also in all the bills.

Is Obama vs the actual legislation fishy?


Want more? Go to www.handsoffmyhealth.org Get knee deep in disinformation. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”


  Read More & Comment...

The Trap Door Beneath the "Seat at the Table"

08/05/2009 12:44 PM |

It must be nice to believe that Uncle Sam, MD can be the reincarnation of Marcus Welby.  Similarly, it must be nice to believe that veganism is the answer to our national healthcare woes.  And it must be nice to believe that a national healthcare system run by the government minus any free-market incentives isn’t socialism. Therefore, it must be nice to be Congressman Dennis Kucinich.  He believes all of the above.

As already mentioned, (http://www.drugwonks.com/blog_post/show/6904)  the former Boy Mayor and I spent the better part of an hour Saturday debating healthcare reform on Fox Business Channel.  My favorite bit (and its right up front, so have look) was when he said that, just because the government would pay the bills and specify the treatments, doesn’t mean the government would be “in control.”

To which I replied (and with all due respect) that he was “living in fantasyland.”

The complete debate can be found here.

http://drugwonks.com/podcasts/peter-pitts-on-fox-business/

Kucinichcare.  What a concept.

In the meantime, the gloves are off elsewhere too. Got this e-mail yesterday and it’s worth passing along:

FISHY CLAIMS

We Answer The White House's Call For "Disinformation" On Government-Run Health Care

THE WHITE HOUSE'S BLOG: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spa nning from control of personal finances to end of life care ... Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." (Macon Phillips, "Facts Are Stubborn Things," The White House's "Briefing Room" Blog, 8/4/09)

WE FOUND FISHY CLAIMS ABOUT KEEPING YOUR DOCTOR AND YOUR INSURANCE PLAN ...

"If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor." http://tinyurl.com/mj5od2

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." http://tinyurl.com/mzkrz9

AND FISHY CLAIMS ABOUT SO-CALLED "PUBLIC PLAN" AND CONSUMER CHOICE ...

"Now, the public plan I think is a important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we've said is, under our proposal, let's have a system the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do, where -- we call it an 'exchange,' or you can call it a 'marketplace' -- where essentially you've got a whole bunch of different plans." http://tinyurl.com/krmgqn

"That's why I've said that I think a public option would make sense. What that then does is, it gives people a choice ... You don't have to do anything. But if you don't have health insurance, then you have an option available to you." http://tinyurl.com/moq36h

AND A FISHY CLAIM ABOUT KEEPING HEALTH CARE COSTS DOWN ...

"What I've said is our top priority has to be to control costs... And I've said very clearly: If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs. It's going to have to be paid for." http://tinyurl.com/krmgqn

AND A FISHY CLAIM ABOUT TAXING MIDDLE CLASS

"And while they're [Congress] currently working through proposals to finance the remaining costs, I continue to insist that health care reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families." http://tinyurl.com/lkvgsp

So to help the surely inundated White House, we've already debunked these "fishy" statements at BarackObamaExperiment.com

Was anyone really ever wearing gloves in the first place?  Hard to act polite when that "seat at the table" had a trap door beneath it.

Meanwhile, on the topic of when “cost” means “co-pay,” a new op-ed in today’s edition of Speaker Pelosi’s hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.  It begins as follows:

Higher co-pay, fewer prescriptions filled

Peter Pitts

“One of the major threats to patient health hasn't received nearly enough attention during the recent negotiations in Washington over comprehensive health care legislation. Millions of Americans aren't sticking to their pharmaceutical drug regimes. As a result, they're compromising their own care, and putting themselves at risk of developing more serious - and more costly - conditions.

According to a recent study by Wolters Kluwer Health, fewer Americans are filling their drug prescriptions. In the fourth quarter of 2008, U.S. patients neglected to fill 6.8 percent of on-patent prescriptions - a 22 percent increase compared to the first quarter of 2007. (On-patent prescriptions are those for which there is no generic alternative to the brand-name drug.)

Why? Drug prices. It's not that the cost of prescription drugs is rising - it's patients' out-of-pocket costs, or co-pays. One of the reasons for this is that insurance companies, reluctant to foot the bill for brand-name medications, have been refusing to cover more brand-name prescriptions.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, in fact, health insurers denied coverage for 10.8 percent of brand-name drugs - a jump of 21 percent from the first quarter of 2007.

And it's not because the medicines themselves are becoming more expensive. Between 1998 and 2003, prescription drug costs increased by $22.48 per person. Meanwhile during that same period, the average health insurance premium went up by $104.62 per person.”

For the rest of the story, see here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/04/EDP0193SR1.DTL

  Read More & Comment...